Monday, November 5, 2012

Copied and pasted from:TheYoungTurks, November 3, 2012.Although the media is keeping this minor's identity secret, a photograph of him shows white skin, which leads me to believe that these electrocution devices are increasingly being used on the white majority as well as Black and Latino minorities. However, although the boy's skin appears white-colored, he could still be a member of a Latino socio-chromatic group and/or the Black socio-political group and the police officer might have been aware of that when he decided how to interact with this boy. F.L.H.

"A 10-year-old boy attending a Tularosa, N.M., Intermediate School's Career Day expected it to be fun and educational, but instead he ended up in the emergency room.

The boy, identified as R.D., blacked out after receiving 50,000 volts of electricity when struck by a police officer's Taser gun.

Rachel Higgins, a guardian appointed by the court to protect the child's privacy filed a lawsuit Oct. 26 in 1st Judicial District Court in Santa Fe County against Police Officer Chris Webb and the New Mexico Department of Public Safety on behalf of R.D., claiming that Webb fired his electronic control weapon at the boy on May 4, 2012.

Higgins will appear in court to represent the boy because the family members live in a small town and do not want to reveal their identities.

The lawsuit claims police officers drove their patrol cars onto the intermediate school campus, where Webb asked a group of boys which one would like to clean his patrol unit.

R.D. raised his hand to say he did not want to clean the police officer's car.

Webb then said, according to the lawsuit, "Let me show what happens to people who do not listen to the police." He then "shot his Taser gun at the boy's chest," said the family's attorney Shannon Kennedy of the Kennedy Law Firm of Albuquerque."* Cenk Uygur and Ana Kasparian break down this story, calling for severe consequences for Officer Webb's reckless use of a taser on a child.

Monday, October 8, 2012

Youtube: "A Santa Monica college student is suing the Los Angeles Police Department for use of excessive force, alleging that officers beat and tased him despite the fact that he was unarmed and not resisting arrest. Aibuidefe Oghogho, who was 23 years old at the time, claims that a 2010 arrest outside a Hollywood nightclub over public consumption of alcohol escalated into a multiple-officer beatdown, reports CBS2...".* Ana Kasparian, Cenk Uygur, and Ben Mankiewicz discuss on The Young Turks.

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Gilbert Thomas Collar was somehow mentally impaired when he went to the office of University of South Alabama campus police, seeking help. Completely nude, he banged on the window of the campus police station, probably thinking that was where he should go when he was in trouble. Instead of helping him, a security officer shot him in the chest and he died immediately.

According to a statement released by the university, an officer heard loud banging on the police station window early Saturday and left his post to investigate. The man banging on the window was Gilbert Thomas Collar, an 18-year-old freshman who had graduated high school the previous spring. He was naked.

Although some facts are disputed and in doubt, the moral of the story is all too clear: Don't imagine that "police are your friends" when you're in need, because police may well not see it that way. If you are a stray bear or an ostrich, police might take the time to arrest you without killing you, but it you are a human being who is naked as a bird, or missing two limbs in a wheelchair, police believe shooting and removing the body if often the preferred policy.

Perhaps police should be ordered to treat stray humans with the level of care for life that they accord stray animals. Or, perhaps, animal control officers should be dispatched to deal with unruly humans rather than police. Why is it that police have time to call animal control officers to handle 600 pound bears, but they haven't the time to capture human alive rather than shoot them?

Is it a matter of expectations (the police are expected to try to take animals in alive), or it is that police lack the alternative of calling an animal control officer when human beings are the animals out of control?

Unruly bears are shot with sedation drugs while human beings are shot to kill. What a strange set of priorities! The definition of "animal" should be changed such that police are required to call animal control officers when animals of the human species confront police and when the alternative to calling animal control officer for a live capture is that police shoot human animal dead.

One need only watch this video to see that a 600 pound bears is treated with more patience and care than are human beings who weigh only 25% as much and whose teeth and claws are not nearly as sharp.

Although police are often accused of treating people like animals, they actually treat human beings considerably worse than they would treat animals in many cases.

Sunday, September 23, 2012

In Houston, Texas, CNN reports, a police officer went to a group home for disabled people and shot an unarmed one-legged, one-armed man to death as he sat in his wheelchair. This police atrocious police fatal aggression is reminiscent of the case in which, "An 82-year-old former heart bypass patient was zapped three times with a Taser fired by the [Royal Canadian Mounted Police] as he lay in a hospital bed in Kamloops, B. C.

A Houston police officer shot and killed a one-armed, one-legged man in a wheelchair Saturday inside a group home after police say the double amputee threatened the officer and aggressively waved a metal object that turned out to be a pen.

Police spokeswoman Jodi Silva said the man cornered the officer in his wheelchair and was making threats while trying to stab the officer with the pen. At the time, the officer did not know what the metal object was that the man was waving, Silva said.

She said the man came "within inches to a foot" of the officer and did not follow instructions to calm down and remain still.

"Fearing for his partner's safety and his own safety, he discharged his weapon," Silva told The Associated Press.

Police did not immediately release the name of the man who was killed. They had been called to the home after a caretaker there called and reported that the man in wheelchair was causing a disturbance.

The owner of the group home, John Garcia, told the Houston Chronicle that the man had a history of mental illness and had been living at the house about 18 months. Garcia said the man had told him that he lost a leg above the knee and all of one arm when he was hit by a train.

"He sometimes would go off a bit, but you just ignore it," Garcia told the newspaper. Silva identified the officer as Matthew Jacob Marin, a five-year veteran of the department. He was immediately placed on three-day administrative leave, which is standard in all shootings involving officers.

Houston police records indicate that Marin also fatally shot a suspect in 2009. Investigators at the time said Marin came upon a man stabbing his neighbor to death at an apartment complex and opened fired when the suspect refused to drop the knife.

On Saturday, Marin and his partner arrived at the group home around 2:30 a.m. Silva said there were several people at the house at the time. The caretaker who called police waited on the porch while the officers went inside, she said. "It was close quarters in the area of the house," Silva said. "The officer was forced into an area where he had no way to get out."

Friday, August 31, 2012

In this YouTube video, LA police bodily drag and lift a woman out of the driver seat of her car, body-slam her on the ground, handcuff her, and then body-slam her again! The woman is a 34 year-old registered nurse, says the video, and police were engaged in a "routine" traffic stop because the woman was allegedly using her cell-phone while driving.

After leaving the woman bruised and battered in the patrol car, these two armed and large police officers bump fists to congratulate one another for what they apparently believe to have been an heroic arrest.

The videotaped confrontation between two Los Angeles Police Department officers and a woman was disturbing and will be fully investigated, Police Chief Charlie Beck said.

“I have serious concerns about this incident," Beck said. "Every Los Angeles police officer, regardless of rank, will be held accountable for their actions."

The commanding officer of the Los Angeles Police Department's Foothill Division was reassigned Wednesday, a day after video was broadcast showing two of his officers twice body-slamming a 34-year-old nurse to the pavement, once while she was in handcuffs.

The move to reassign Capt. Joseph Hiltner, as well as bump him from his current Captain III rank to a lower pay grade of Captain I, was announced by Beck at a news conference Wednesday evening at LAPD headquarters.

Hiltner, a 34-year LAPD veteran, could not be reached for comment Wednesday night.

Beck said Internal Affairs detectives have launched a criminal and administrative investigation into the Aug. 21 use-of-force incident, which began after the officers pulled over Michelle Jordan at a Del Taco restaurant in Tujunga because she was holding a cellphone while driving.

LAPD brass didn't find out about the incident until the department was contacted by a KNBC reporter asking for comment Tuesday about the incident and black-and-white security surveillance footage that captured the officers' actions, police officials said.

As the 5-foot 4-inch Jordan left her vehicle, she allegedly failed to comply with officers' commands to get back into the car and was slammed to the ground by the male officers and placed in handcuffs, according to police officials.

While handcuffed, she was led to the officers' patrol car. Moments later, she was slammed again to the pavement, apparently with more force, by one of the officers, who was much larger than Jordan, the officials said.

The video footage appears to show the two officers exchanging high fives after Jordan was taken down.

Tuesday, August 21, 2012

In the above video, Saginaw, MI police shoot at Milton Hall, a 47 year-old Black man who his family says suffered from "serious mental health issues," shot at approximately 46 times by six police officers, according to Michigan Live news. Police officers fire 30 shots that actually strike and and kill Mr. Hall.

Police apparently say that they were called to the scene because the man they shot was involved in an incident with a convenience store clerk beforehand.

One witness who observed the shooting said that Mr. Hall assumed a karate posture before police shot at him. It is not clear how it has become accepted as a matter of fact that Mr. Hall was holding a knife when police shot him, although it must be true that police say he was holding a knife, because that appears in the various news reports. One news video said police said the man was holding "some sort of knife."

The lack of specificity leads me to wonder why the police cannot say or have not said exactly what "sort of knife" the man was holding. To my eyes, the knife is not visible in the video. Was he holding a knife or wasn't he, I would like to know? Was he holding the same knife in the convenience store and, if so, is there any video confirming that?

It seems to me, based on watching the video and listening to the shouts of Mr. Hall, that Mr. Hall was in a self-destructive and combative state of mind when he was confronted by the police and shot. In the video, Mr. Hall says, "My name is Milton Hall and I just called the police." Then he challenges the police, shouting, "Let the dog go! Let the motherfucking dog go!" The dog is not visible in the video and it is not clear whether police did let the dog go and, if not, then why not, as an alternative to shooting Mr. Hall 30 times without releasing the dog.

It seems to me, based on the video, that Mr. Hall instigated the confrontation himself because he was in a self-destructive and mentally agitated state of mind. When confronted with potentially overwhelming force, including six police officers, the dog and their guns, he invited the police to use such force as they wished. That is consistent with the "serious mental health issues" from which the family told the media Hall suffered.

Mr. Hall seems to me to have committed suicide by cop, but did police make it too easy for him? Was this an assisted suicide? It seems clear that, even if Mr. Hall was holding a knife (that hasn't been presented for public inspection), police could still have released the dog to disable the man; could have shot the man in the leg or arm; could have thrown a net over him and toppled him to the ground; could have toppled him with a fire hose, and could have employed a myriad other strategies instead of and before shooting this man to kill.

I surmise that these police officers, instead of using problem-solving skills that a game control officer would use to capture an wild animal alive, were intent only on arresting Mr. Hall, dead or alive. When one officer decided to shoot him, they all did so until he was dead, instead of one of them taking announcing to the others that he would shoot Mr. Hill until he was disabled, but not necessarily until he was dead.

Was the police's homicidal behavior aroused by a knife or by Mr. Hall's skin color? What seems shocking about videos such as this one is that, although Blacks are a mere 13% of the population of the United States, people with brown skin seem to represent virtually all of the victims of shootings such as this one. If there are cases in which police shoot white-skinned knife wielders thiry times, none of us seems to be aware of those cases. That is, perhaps, because they don't exist.

Instead, police seem to arrive on the scene, observe or know already that the confrontation involves a Black person, and then mete out the treatment that they regularly use in cases involving Black people, including unnecessary lethal force and/or barbaric and atrocious reprehensible force and other behavior. Police know that there are rarely serious consequences for behaving in this way in incidents with Black people, but there might be a national firestorm of unprecedented proportions if they treated a white person in the same way. It would not be long tolerated and police would face serious consequences typically do not accrue when they kill a man with brown skin.

The media reports say local residents are angry that, after six weeks, the police have not reported the results of an internal investigation of the shooting. One problem of US conflict between police forces and the public is that police forces themselves are charged with the task of investigating their own behavior and incidents that raise questions about their own judgments.

Police certainly should gather all of the information that is available. Rather than release a statement about their findings, they should release all of the information they have gathered, including ballistics reports, recordings, officer, witness and family statements, and other information that would assist members of the public, the district attorney, attorneys for the family, the media, state and federal authorities in determining whether police behavior is problematic and what should be done about it.

Clearly, police perform various functions in the process of an investigation of themselves. They gather information internally; try to manage the public's anger, distrust and demands; engage in efforts to limit the damage to police and municipal interests that has been caused by an incident; defend a city and individual police officers from civil liability; protect police officers and their superiors from potential criminal liability and manage the public's perception of and acceptance of police behavior and authority.

It ought to be clear to the public that no unbiased "determination" about a shooting can come from an agency whose self-interests are so many and are so potentially and directly in opposition to the public's interest in knowing the truth. For these reasons, an investigation conducted by the police is unlikely to reveal any account of the facts that is unbiased in its investigation, compilation and publicly announced conclusions.

Rather than clamor for the police to complete an investigation, the public might more usefully clamor for access to physical evidence and police statements that could subsequently become evidence in a civil suit. The same evidence that would be the basis of a civil judgment is evidence that the public should demand to see in order to understand and judge the facts involving those who are ostensibly public servants. Although the demands might be met with silence, at least the demands themselves would be more educative and less misleading and beguiling of the public's expectations.

Since any police report is typically summary (does not include underlying evidence) and biased, I don't understand why the public would or should ask for such a report at all. It's a futile waste of time and energy, except for fulfilling any formal requirements that a complaint be lodged.

There are many strategy alternatives that Blacks might conceivably employ to seek justice or provide a police deterrent in cases like this one. Demanding a police review seems more like an exercise in futility than a strategy, unless it is coupled with the preparation of a civil suit and taking other measures. It's a dilatory request for a foregone conclusion.

Sunday, August 5, 2012

Same old color aroused hatred, 2012 style. While most people are celebrating what good about America, another 21-year-old black man was shot in the head and killed while handcuffed in the back of a patrol car. Get this, now the police have launched a bogus investigation to determine what happened! WE know what happened the police killed a man for running his mouth and selling marijuana. They acted as jury and executionors. You see,
Chavis Carter was a passenger in a pickup truck that was stopped by police in Jonesboro, Ark., Saturday night, according to KAIT, an ABC-affiliated television station. An officer reportedly found some marijuana, and ran Carter's information. He was wanted on a warrant out of Mississippi, so officers placed him in a patrol car.

Get this, the police say, "As protocol, he was handcuffed behind his back, double-locked and searched," said Jonesboro Police Department Sgt. Lyle Waterworth in an interview with WREG-TV.

Just minutes later, police said they heard a thumping noise, turned around and found Carter shot in the head. Right! You got to be kidding me right! The police said they heard a thumping noise, turned around and found Carter shot in the head. This is cold blooded murder folks. There is more stupidity coming from these bigots. Get this, Police say they think Carter pulled out a hidden gun and shot himself. “Any given officer has missed something on a search, you know, be it drugs, be it knives, be it razor blades," he said. "This instance, it happened to be a gun." OK, so a handcuffed black man shot himself in the head? Community leaders are having none of this!

His mother, Teresa Carter, disagrees. "I think they killed him," she said. "My son wasn't suicidal." Carter said she was also told her son was shot in the right temple, although he was left-handed. Get this, The two officers who were present when Carter was found shot were placed on administrative leave.

Let's see how powerful the National Office of the NAACP is? Is it a paper tiger organization? Instead of giving image awards, they should be in the hood addressing the real issues impacting urban America. Hat Tip to the Ed Show, The Huffington Post and others for addressing this issue.

Saturday, June 23, 2012

As at 18th June 2012 the current status is - No officers convicted of a death in custody in the UK since 1969 despite 11 unlawful killing verdicts and over 1000 such deaths; over three hundred and thirty of these since 1998.

Kingsley Burrell, aged 27 years old, died in what appear to be extremely suspicious circumstances in Birmingham. It is reported that he called the police after he tried to talk to a group of young people who were intimidating him and his 5 year old son. He was subsequently arrested himself and detained under the Mental Health Act. Days later he was in intensive care and subsequently died 31st March 2011.

Fifteen months on Kingsley’s sister confirms that his body has still not been released for burial… it is truly inhumane that his body has yet to be released also that it takes so long for the matter to come before the courts…We can no longer be ignorant to the tactics that are being used in order to keep us from the truth... from justice being done...The family will be marching again 11th August 2012.

This is not a letter encouraging an Anti-Police protest but a peaceful NATIONAL show of solidarity by the community in order to support these families on the long and often lonely journey in seeking justice for their loved ones.

This march (as have others previously) will continue to make it clear to the Authorities that the Community is very much aware and concerned and will no longer allow our loved ones and members of our community to be unlawfully killed without us seeking answers to the pertinent and very painful questions, notwithstanding that in cases where there has been foul play, the IPCC investigation is comprehensive and balanced and that those responsible are held to account through the court.

I write this letter to petition YOU the Community both in the Midlands and further afield to attend and support the family of Kingsley Burrell in the march planned forSaturday 11th August 2012, the march will start at Summerfield Park, Icknield Port Road where the incident occurred with Kingsley and finish with a rally outside Centenary Square on Broad Street. Times will be confirmed at a later date.

Community this is just shy of two months’ notice. Please continue to share the details of the march among your organisations, friends, family, and colleagues and across your social networks we owe it to the families and the Community to show our support.For more information regarding Kingsleys case please go to http://www.facebook.com/Justice4Kingsley

Thursday, June 7, 2012

The last time I cried, I remember the stream of tears that running down the sides of my cheeks, tears of joy, an unbelievable crown and glory moment in my life.

I lay on my back in the grass, looking up at the night skies, at the moon and its stars. Tower lights beamed down upon the prison grounds, as bright as sunlight, but it had been years since I had last seen the silhouettes of the night. Seven years buried in a sensory deprivation chamber, deep inside the bowels of the federal infamous super-max Control Unit, alas, I was awe smitten to see the moon and stars for the first time in as many years.

They had just released me from a cold strip cell, where I had been held incommunicado, with three other captives. Barring me contact with my lawyers, federal officials instead transferred me to a college-like campus prison at El Reno in Oklahoma. It was here, within these confines, I lay, gazing up at the stars, and crying my eyes out.

The warden had pulled me out of the dungeon, where I had been stripped to my briefs, placed in an isolated cell, and given running water for 15 minutes in the morning, and 15 minutes in the evening. The windows of the cell were cranked wide open to allow the winter's bitter chill to invade my solitary chamber.

The barren cold gave me no peace, night or day, and neither could I lie down to sleep on the hard steel bunk. So, I sat hunched over, glued to my bunk by the frost, day in and day out, for weeks, until I lost my sense of time.

There was no need for me to eat, because my bodily functions were shutting down. Food trays came in through door slot and went back out, untouched and uneaten.

At first, I protested my mistreatment and demanded my rights. I demanded a pencil and writing paper. But none came, and neither came any mail from the outside world. I was totally cut off, with no voice of grievance to be heard and no power to execute my constitutional rights. Then it dawned on me, I was put here to die. Therefore, all my protests were meaningless and void.

I realized the dire straits of my situation one day when the guard passed through with the food trays. I asked him, “Will you give a dying man’s a last request for a cigarette?”

He reached into his shirt pocket, took one out, handed to me. Then he broke down in tears. Strange it felt. Somebody cared about Eddie Griffin. But there was nothing he could do to mitigate my suffering. His helplessness empathy showed on his face and in his tears.

Out the open windows, I had screamed repeatedly for help, hoping against the northern winds, that my voice could be heard by other inmates in the adjacent building. A lump popped up in my throat like a tumor, and there was no more strength left within me. Passively, I accepted my fate. I was slowly freezing to death and gradually declining.

Then one day, out of nowhere, the warden summoned me to be brought to his office. He had an announcement. “Griffin, we are kicking you out of here. We do not want to see or hear from you again,” he said.

In hindsight, being "kicked out" of a super-max dungeon, where politically conscious prisoners were kept in isolation, seemed rather bizarre. But all I could think, at the time, was: “Thank you, Jesus.” At that point, I could have kissed the warden’s feet. So, I made him the promise. If released, he would never hear from me again.

Up to that point, Eddie Griffin was the most interviewed prisoner in the system during the 1970s, as one journalist observed. I had been designated the sacrificial lamb as the prisoners’ voice on human rights issues, by all the inmates and prisoner support groups, because of my published writings. And almost every day, I found myself speaking to reporters from different newspapers, magazines, and television stations around the country about the status and conditions of prisoners confined in a facility the government would rather kept secret because of its experimental mind control programs.

Therefore, my release from the refrigerated morgue cell was conditional upon my consent to keep silent. I willfully agreed rather than be sent back. But as fate would have it, the old warden would indeed see and hear from me again, many years down the road, in courtroom testimony, in a lawsuit from lawyers who were denied access into the prison to interview other inmates. (Abel case)

Nevertheless, being released from the notorious Control Unit was a blessing within itself; otherwise my only hope was to be shipped back to my hometown in Texas in a body bag. And, staring up into the heavens on a starry night over El Reno, Oklahoma was as close to paradise as I could imagine.

I recalled a cold gray day in the dungeon, as I sat in a frozen stupor, peering out into empty space, a vision unfolded. I kept blinking to keep my eyes from glazing over with a crust of frost. But then I saw clearly, as it was, a screen like television monitor, with an image of a ship frozen at sea, against the backdrop of a deep blue sky. The image haunted me like a sign of impending death, like something a man would see just before crossing over into the unknown abyss.

The irony of it all was that by nightfall, I opened my eyes again and saw a quarter moon smiling down upon me and stars dancing across the Oklahoma skies. My soul was refreshed, my eyes flooded with tears of joy. I had survived another crown and glory moment in my life. But my eyes would never go back to normal.

Monday, June 4, 2012

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

After George Zimmerman was arrested and charged with second degree murder for the killing of Trayvon Martin, and after he surrendered his passport as a condition of his bond, did he commit a separate federal crime punishable by up to fifteen years in prison by lying on a US passport application in order to replace the passport that he had surrendered to the criminal court? Electronic recordings of his conversations while in prison, the fact that he obtained a second passport after surrendering one, and presumably the recent passport application itself, demonstrate precisely what he did.

During the hearing, prosecutors introduced several recordings of telephone conversations between Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, made while he was in jail. In one such recording, they can be heard speaking cryptically about a second passport in his possession. Zimmerman was ordered by the judge to hand over his passport so he couldn’t flee the country, but Zimmerman applied for a second passport after the shooting, saying his first one had been stolen. (Emphasis added.)

Page two of the US Passport application form asks for the "status of most recent passport," whether "lost" or "stolen." There are reasons for requesting a passport that are unlawful, so the questions requesting to know the motive for the application are legally essential to whether the passport will be issued and whether a crime is committed in requesting it. If Zimmerman falsely checked a "lost" or "stolen" box, as the Christian Science Monitor reports, when in fact he had surrendered his passport to the criminal court trying him for murder, then he likely committed a separate federal crime, under 18 U.S.C. § 1542, for which he could spend up to fifteen years in federal prison.

Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in an application for passport with intent to induce or secure the issuance of a passport under the authority of the United States,either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the lawsregulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribed pursuant to such laws; or

Whoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, orfurnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which wassecured in any way by reason of any false statement - Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act ofinternational terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of this title)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate adrug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of this title)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense, if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime),or 15 years(in the case of any other offense), or both. (Emphasis added.)

According to US v. O'Bryant, a federal criminal case in which a defendant was convicted for a violation of this law,

Section 1542 proscribes "willfully and knowingly" making a false statement in a passport application. The crime is complete when one makes a statement one knows is untrue to procure a passport. See Browder v. United States, 312 U.S. 335, 337, 61 S.Ct. 599, 601, 85 L.Ed. 862 (1941); United States v. Winn, 577 F.2d 86, 91 (9th Cir.1978). Good or bad motives are irrelevant. Browder, 312 U.S. at 337-38, 61 S.Ct. 599, 601, 85 L.Ed. 862; United States v. Washington, 705 F.2d 489, 493-94 (D.C.Cir.1983).

The purpose of the "lost" or "stolen" questions is to assure that no individual has more than one passport, to prevent the use of aliases and other subterfuge, such as obtaining a substitute passport to flee the country while out on bail. For whatever reason, Zimmerman apparently engaged in precisely the type of subterfuge which the federal statute was enacted to prevent, and for which violation penalties were doubled in 1996. See the statute, US Attorneys Manual, Christian Science Monitor reported facts and discussion below.

Did Zimmerman actually tell the federal government that his passport had been stolen when, in fact, he had surrendered it to a court as part of a criminal proceeding? If so, in addition to a violation of the terms of his bond, that lying on a US passport application is a federal crime punishable by up to fifteen years in prison.

The US Attorneys Manual provides further explanation and references concerning this federal crime:

Section 1542 of Title 18 proscribes both false statements made to obtain a passport, and use of any passport so obtained.

The false statement against which this section is most commonly used is the use of a false name in obtaining a passport. United States citizens attempt to obtain passports using false names in order to conceal criminal activity. A problem of proof can arise when the passport applicant has routinely used aliases and now seeks to obtain a passport in one of those aliases. See, e.g., United States v. O'Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Cox, 593 F.2d 46 (6th Cir.1979); United States v. Wasman, 641 F.2d 326 (5th Cir.1981), aff'd, 464 U.S. 932 (1984).

Browder v. United States, 312 U.S. 335 (1941), is the leading case on use of a passport, the application for which contained a false statement. Browder obtained a passport in his real name, but in the portion of the application asking when his last passport was obtained, he falsely stated, "none." This statement was false because he had previously obtained a passport in a false name. He then used the new passport to enter the United States. The Supreme Court upheld Browder's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1542 for innocent use of a passport secured by a false statement. See 53 A.L.R.Fed. 507.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended this statute to provide for enhanced penalties if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime.[cited in USAM 9-73.600]

Although there are facts in doubt with regard to how and why George Zimmerman killed Trayvon Martin, the facts recounted in the Christian Science Monitor, based on tape recorded conversations and Zimmerman's signature on a passport application, would seem to leave little doubt but that Zimmerman committed a federal crime while in state custody. And Zimmerman clearly shows no respect for the rule of law that a legitimate crime watch volunteer would seek to advance and uphold.

Federal prosecutors in Florida should immediately indict George Zimmerman, and his wife if she aided and abetted his crime, for lying on the US Passport Application, seeking the ten or fifteen years in Federal prison that such a conviction could entail, depending on whether this was a first, second or third or more offense.

The above discussion does not constitute legal advice or counsel or the practice of law on behalf of any party or parties, and is provided exclusively for purposes of public debate.

Sunday, June 3, 2012

"The police in New York City made 50,684 arrests last year for possession

of a small amount of marijuana, more than for any other offense..."

Just when I believed white America's goal was to incarcerate every last Black person in the United States of America, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York offers a policy proposal to turn the tide in the opposite direction. The New York Times reports today,

By THOMAS KAPLAN

Published: June 3, 2012

Wading into the debate over stop-and-frisk police tactics, Gov.Andrew M. Cuomo plans to ask legislators on Monday for a change in New York State law that would drastically reduce the number of people who could be arrested for marijuana possession as a result of police stops.

The governor will call for the decriminalization of possession of small amounts of marijuana in public view, administration officials said. Advocates of such a change say the offense has ensnared tens of thousands of young black and Latino men who are stopped by the New York City police for other reasons but after being instructed to empty their pockets, find themselves charged with a crime.

Reducing the impact of the Bloomberg administration’s stop-and-frisk policy has been a top priority of lawmakers from minority neighborhoods, who have urged Mr. Cuomo, a Democrat, to pay more attention to the needs of their communities. The lawmakers argue that young men found with small amounts of marijuana are being needlessly funneled into the criminal justice system and have difficulty finding jobs as a result.

From 2002 to 2011, New York City recorded 400,000 low-level marijuana arrests, according to his analysis. That represented more arrests than under Mr. Bloomberg’s three predecessors put together — a period of 24 years. Most of those arrested have been young black and Hispanic men, and most had no prior criminal convictions.

When the State of Florida decided to charge George Zimmerman with second degree murder in the killing of Trayvon Martin, the judge in the case showed a willingness to treat George Zimmerman quite mercifully, by setting a low bail that would allow Zimmerman to be free while the court case proceeded. It was my belief that by allowing Zimmerman to be free pending trial, the court signaled that additional holdings favorable to Zimmerman would be forthcoming, including in the judge's eventual decision whether the "Stand Your Ground" law prevented Zimmerman from being tried at all in the Trayvon Martin case.

The judge, by allowing bail at all, indicated that he did not perceive Zimmerman to be a strong threat to the public or a significant flight risk. It was a literal "judgment decision" that the court decided in Zimmerman's favor.

I disagreed with that decision. In my opinion, a man who would ignore police and follow a man in the dark once, and believe he was doing the right thing, might do the same thing again while out on bail, before the court could decide whether he had acted within the law when he killed another man under those same circumstances.

Zimmerman, however, abused the Judge's leniency by lying to the judge concerning the resources Zimmerman had available to post bond. On a motion by George Zimmerman's defense team, the judge in the case allowed members of George Zimmerman's family to testify by telephone in favor of a bail that the family would be more able to pay. According to the Orlando Sentinel,

At a bond hearing April 20, Zimmerman's wife, Shellie, had testified under oath that the couple didn't have any savings. In reality, they had more than $135,000, with more flooding in from supporters who were making contributions via a website Zimmerman set up after he shot and killed Trayvon Martin in Sanford Feb. 26.

Zimmerman's honesty and his judgment are at the heart of the substance of the case involving his shooting of Trayvon Martin. By clearly lying to the judge in a way that is demonstrable, Zimmerman angered the judge, won the judge's personal animosity, and cast doubt on his own honesty in a way that will linger throughout the proceedings, including the stage in which the judge decides whether the "Stand Your Ground" law prevents the case from reaching a jury at all.

Although a "neighborhood watch volunteer" should collaborate with officials in the criminal justice system, including judges, and help police to enforce the rule of law, Zimmerman has showed contempt for the criminal in yet another way, according to the Christian Science Monitor.

At Zimmerman's first bond hearing, he was ordered to surrender his passport, which he did. Yet, according to electronic recordings of Zimmerman's telephone conversations with his wife while he was in custody, he subsequently applied for second, in clear defiance of the court's orders in this respect, says CSM:

During the hearing, prosecutors introduced several recordings of telephone conversations between Zimmerman and his wife, Shellie, made while he was in jail. In one such recording, they can be heard speaking cryptically about a second passport in his possession. Zimmerman was ordered by the judge to hand over his passport so he couldn’t flee the country, but Zimmerman applied for a second passport after the shooting, saying his first one had been stolen. (Emphasis added.)

Whoever willfully and knowingly makes any false statement in anapplication for passport with intent to induce or secure theissuance of a passport under the authority of the United States,either for his own use or the use of another, contrary to the lawsregulating the issuance of passports or the rules prescribedpursuant to such laws; orWhoever willfully and knowingly uses or attempts to use, orfurnishes to another for use any passport the issue of which wassecured in any way by reason of any false statement -Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 25years (if the offense was committed to facilitate an act ofinternational terrorism (as defined in section 2331 of thistitle)), 20 years (if the offense was committed to facilitate adrug trafficking crime (as defined in section 929(a) of thistitle)), 10 years (in the case of the first or second such offense,if the offense was not committed to facilitate such an act ofinternational terrorism or a drug trafficking crime), or 15 years(in the case of any other offense), or both.

The US Attorneys Manual provides further explanation and references concerning this federal crime:

Section 1542 of Title 18 proscribes both false statements made to obtain a passport, and use of any passport so obtained.

The false statement against which this section is most commonly used is the use of a false name in obtaining a passport. United States citizens attempt to obtain passports using false names in order to conceal criminal activity. A problem of proof can arise when the passport applicant has routinely used aliases and now seeks to obtain a passport in one of those aliases. See, e.g., United States v. O'Bryant, 775 F.2d 1528 (11th Cir.1985); United States v. Cox, 593 F.2d 46 (6th Cir.1979); United States v. Wasman, 641 F.2d 326 (5th Cir.1981), aff'd, 464 U.S. 932 (1984).

Browder v. United States, 312 U.S. 335 (1941), is the leading case on use of a passport, the application for which contained a false statement. Browder obtained a passport in his real name, but in the portion of the application asking when his last passport was obtained, he falsely stated, "none." This statement was false because he had previously obtained a passport in a false name. He then used the new passport to enter the United States. The Supreme Court upheld Browder's conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 1542 for innocent use of a passport secured by a false statement. See 53 A.L.R.Fed. 507.

The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA) amended this statute to provide for enhanced penalties if the offense was committed to facilitate an act of international terrorism or a drug trafficking crime.[cited in USAM 9-73.600]

Zimmerman was ordered not to have a passport, but he committed a federal crime, lying to State Department authorities, telling them that his passport had been stolen, so that he could obtain another one. When Zimmerman lies to the court about over a hundred thousand dollars in the bank, and then goes behind the court's back and lies to the federal Government to obtain an illicit passport, showing contempt for law in both instances, who can believe that he killed Trayvon Martin out of respect for and defense of legality?

Lawyers know they can well be jailed, disbarred and lose all credibility with a judge if they are caught knowingly telling falsehoods or intentionally misleading a judge with regard to any fact material to a case, to proceedings or to any matter whatsoever. A murder or rape is a crime against society, but lying to a judge is still worse, particularly as a legal strategy, because it is an offense against the intelligence and honor of that particular judge who will make the procedural, evidentiary and factual decisions on which the results in cases before that judge will subsequently depend.

In fact, Zimmerman did not even need the benefit of the lie he told the judge in his case, because his Paypal account already contained the monies needed to post a higher bail if the judge ordered it. The justice system hasn't yet determined whether Zimmerman is a murderer (who committed an unlawful killing), but the judge has determined categorically that Zimmerman and some members of his family are deliberate liars, and that will have continuing consequences for Zimmerman's legal situation.

Lying to a judge is "biting the hand that feeds you." Zimmerman is guilty of having bitten the hand that freed him.

Howard Morgan was never tested for gun residue to confirm if he even fired a weapon on the morning in question.

The State never produced the actual bullet proof vest worn by one of the officers who claimed to have allegedly taken a shot directly into the vest on the morning in question. The State only produced a replica.

"If they can do this and eliminate double jeopardy and your constitutional rights, then my God, I fear for every Afro-American -- whether they be male or female -- in this corrupt unjust system," Morgan's wife told the Sun-Times.

According to police, Morgan opened fire with his service weapon when four white officers tried to arrest him, which caused them to shoot him 28 times. His family disputes the police officers' account of the altercation.

Howard Morgan's van was crushed and destroyed without notice or cause before any forensic investigation could be done...

Howard Morgan was never tested for gun residue to confirm if he even fired a weapon on the morning in question.

The State never produced the actual bullet proof vest worn by one of the officers who claimed to have allegedly taken a shot directly into the vest on the morning in question. The State only produced a replica.